John Hough
First Post
Thank you for your responses. And thanks to the mod who added the 'other' choice. Seems people are pretty much with me on this one
Are multiclass spellcasters broken?
- Thread starter John Hough
- Start date
- Status
Arnwyn
First Post
Too "weak"? What does that mean? Does it mean that multi-classed spellcasters have reduced combat power?
If that's the case, then I say "yes", they do have reduced combat power. And darn right, they should. Getting equivalent combat power along with a vast improvement in versatility is asinine. (Otherwise, you get such monstrosities like the "Hallowed Mage" from The Book of Hallowed Might. What was Monte thinking??)
I just don't understand WotC's obsession with trying to "up" the power of multi-classed spellcasters. This over-emphasis on combat is absolute nonsense. The increase in versatility certainly makes up for any loss in combat effectiveness. The whole game does not need to be about combat (depending on the game and players' styles, of course).
I guess it's just a fundemental concept that I disagree with. Not much I can do except house-rule away any change that goes in the wrong direction. I like it just fine as it is right now.
If that's the case, then I say "yes", they do have reduced combat power. And darn right, they should. Getting equivalent combat power along with a vast improvement in versatility is asinine. (Otherwise, you get such monstrosities like the "Hallowed Mage" from The Book of Hallowed Might. What was Monte thinking??)
I just don't understand WotC's obsession with trying to "up" the power of multi-classed spellcasters. This over-emphasis on combat is absolute nonsense. The increase in versatility certainly makes up for any loss in combat effectiveness. The whole game does not need to be about combat (depending on the game and players' styles, of course).
I guess it's just a fundemental concept that I disagree with. Not much I can do except house-rule away any change that goes in the wrong direction. I like it just fine as it is right now.
arnwyn said:
D&D is all about combat. All the core classes are balanced around the ability to kick butt, to a greater or lesser degree (even the bard has some combat ability; there are no pure "social" characters like the WoT noble or the Rokugan courtier). Half the DMG is taken up with rules for XP and treasure awards. The MM entries are all about combat stats. The spell lists are similarly all about combat utility; you'll find few equivalents to the utility spells in GURPS Grimoire, for example.
There's even a quote by Ryan Dancey from about 2000 that D&D was all about "going into dungeons, killing monsters and taking their treasure".
Not that there's anything wrong with running a game that doesn't feature lots of fighting, but the ruleset itself and the overarching design philosophy are incontrovertibly all about combat. Therefore it's entirely reasonable to want a multiclassed spellcaster to be able to hold his own in this regard.
Arnwyn
First Post
Yeah, yeah - I know, Hong. And to be honest, I agree. Everyone should have decent combat potential. But the bard and rogue are hardly paragons of combat. They have a huge amount of what I have been referring to as "versatility".
So, IMO, multi-class spellcasters *do* have enough combat potential, and loads of versatility to boot (just like a bard and/or rogue).
So, IMO, multi-class spellcasters *do* have enough combat potential, and loads of versatility to boot (just like a bard and/or rogue).
Will
First Post
arnwyn said:
See, for me, it's not combat ability. It's versatility.
A multi-class spellcaster gets a very modest increase in some kinds of versatility for massive losses of other kinds.
And it's not just 'combat' ability.
If you are a 15th level spellcaster, a diplomat/gentleman spy, and you have to charm that aristocrat...
If you are Sor6/Wiz9, you are unlikely to succeed.
Consider a 10th level party. Would 2 5th level guys be a valuable addition? They are more versatile, and can do completely different things...
I think the spellcaster-spellcaster problem is analogous. 'half as effective, twice as versatile' is equal to total level-2, not half of level.
Cloudgatherer
First Post
Multiclassing the fighting classes can be pretty cool, but doing so for spellcasting classes is downright suicidal. Which it really shouldn't be. There should be some advantages to flexibility over specialization, but multiclass spellcasters rarely have even much flexibility compared to the other party members. Later.
- Status
